Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Related to
Pediatric Radiation Safety
Paul H Yi, MD, Meghan M Yi, BA, & Jie Nguyen, MD, MSDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Disclosures
The authors have no financial disclosures relevant to this electronic exhibit.
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 2
Introduction• Poor patient comprehension of healthcare education
materials could lead to low health literacy, worse clinical outcomes, and increased healthcare expenditures…
• ... especially for vulnerable groups such as pediatric patients.
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 3
Introduction• Prior studies indicate that patient education materials from multiple fields of
medicine, including Radiology, are written at a level too high for the average patient.
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 4
Goals & Objectives• The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of online patient
education materials related to pediatric radiation safety.
• Target Audience: Radiologists, both in clinical practice and in training
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 5
Methods• All patient education articles related to Pediatric Radiation Safety
recommended on the websites of the Society of Pediatric Radiology, RadiologyInfo, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2016 were reviewed:• Radiology Info (www.radiologyinfo.org)• American Academy of Pediatrics (www.aap.org)• From the SPR website (www.spr.org):
• Image Gently (www.imagegently.org)• ALARA concept (Ped Rad White Paper Executive Summary)• National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov)• Cincinnati Children’s Hospital (www.cincinnatichildrens.org)• Health Physics Society (www.hps.org)• 3 articles on Airplane Scanner safety
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 6
Methods• Follow-up editing was performed and one observer assessed each article with 6
separate readability scales:1. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level2. Gunning-Fog Index3. Coleman-Liau Index4. Automated Readability Index5. Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)6. Flesch Reading Ease
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 7
Readability Tools
University of Wisconsin–Madison 8
Readability Tools
University of Wisconsin–Madison 9
Readability Interpretation
University of Wisconsin–Madison 10
Readability Interpretation
University of Wisconsin–Madison 11
Methods• A second observer evaluated a subset of articles in order to assess intraobserver and
interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). • The number of articles with readability less than-or-equal to the 8th grade level
(average reading ability of US adults) and the 6th grade level (recommended level for patient education materials) were determined.
• Mean readability levels of each online source's articles were compared using ANOVA (significance set at p < 0.05).
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 12
Results
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 13
Mean Minmum Maximum
FKGL 13.2 8.4 20.8
Gunning-Fog Index 15.3 9.2 24.6
Coleman-Liau Index 13.4 9.2 18.3
ARI 12.6 8.1 18.8
SMOG 14.6 8.5 21.2
• 47 Articles were reviewed in total. • The mean readability grade level was greater than the 12th
grade reading level for all 5 readability scales using grade level.
Intra- and interobserver reliability of FK grade assessment were excellent!
Results
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 14
• The mean readability grade level did not differ between the three sources of articles!
FKGL (Mean
[Range; SD])
Gunning-Fog Index
(Mean [Range; SD])
Coleman-Liau Index
(Mean [Range; SD])
ARI(Mean [Range;
SD])
SMOG(Mean [Range;
SD])
Flesch Reading Ease
(Mean [Range; SD])
RadiologyInfo 13.4(9.1 to 18.4; 2.3)
15.5(9.2 to 20.8; 2.8)
13.4(9.2 to 18.1; 2.0)
12.9(8.4 to 18.8; 2.5)
14.8(8.5 to 19.1; 2.0)
33.3(6.2 to 63.4; 12.2)
SPR-Recommended Websites
12.9(9.7 to 20.8; 3.7)
15.8(11.4 to 24.6; 4.2)
13.9(10.8 to 18.3; 2.4)
11.8(8.2 to 18.8; 3.4)
14.8(11.9 to 21.2; 3.1)
33.4(11.4 to 48.6; 12.1)
HealthyChildren.org 11.9(8.4 to 15.7; 3.1)
13.7(10.4 to 17.6; 3.6)
13.0(10.3 to 15.6; 2.4)
11.5(8.1 to 14.9; 3.4)
13.5(11.2 to 16.4; 2.2)
40.8(27.5 to 61.9; 13.9)
Results• No articles were < to the 8th grade level OR < to the 6th grade
level!
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 15
Significance of Conclusions• The majority of online patient education materials related to pediatric radiation
safety are written at a level too high to be comprehended by the average patient.
• Future efforts should be made to improve the quality of such patient education materials, especially for vulnerable groups, such as the pediatric patient population.
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 16
5/24/2017 University of Wisconsin–Madison 17
Thank You!Please address all correspondence to:
Paul H Yi, MDResident [email protected]